The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God

“Unless you’re able to look at marriage through the lens of Scripture instead of through your own fears or romanticism, through your particular experience, or through your culture’s narrow perspectives, you won’t be able to make intelligent decisions about your own marital future.”

Contrast and conditional phrasing expose how personal fears, romantic ideals, past experiences, and cultural narratives can distort one’s understanding of marriage. The structure—built around a series of limiting perspectives—serves to emphasize the insufficiency of these frameworks when separated from Scripture. By insisting on the need to see marriage “through the lens of Scripture,” the authors reinforce a central theme of the book: the Likening Marriage to Christ’s Relationship with the Church. Only by adopting this theological perspective, they argue, can individuals form a right and enduring view of marriage—one rooted not in fleeting emotion or societal trends, but in covenant, sacrifice, and redemptive love.

“Over the last forty years, the ‘leading marriage indicators’—empirical descriptions of marriage health and satisfaction in the United States—have been in steady decline. 2 The divorce rate is nearly twice the rate it was in 1960. 3 In 1970, 89 percent of all births were to married parents, but today only 60 percent are. 4 Most tellingly, over 72 percent of American adults were married in 1960, but only 50 percent were in 2008.”

The authors employ quantitative data as a rhetorical and literary device to establish the declining state of marriage in contemporary society. The use of specific, time-stamped statistics creates a sense of factual authority and urgency, while the gradual downward trend across multiple indicators—divorce rates, marital births, and overall marriage participation—reinforces a cumulative sense of cultural disintegration. The authors foreground empirical evidence to highlight how drastically societal norms around marriage have shifted, setting the stage for the book’s argument that these shifts demand a deeper reexamination of marriage’s purpose and meaning.

“Despite the claim of the young man in the Gallup survey, ‘a substantial body of evidence indicates that those who live together before marriage are more likely to break up after marriage.’ Cohabitation is an understandable response from those who experienced their own parents’ painful divorces, but the facts indicate that the cure may be worse than the alleged disease.”

The Kellers blend empirical evidence with rhetorical irony to challenge cultural assumptions about cohabitation. By referencing a Gallup survey alongside the phrase “the cure may be worse than the alleged disease,” they expose a contradiction between popular belief and statistical reality. The ironic tone critiques the logic of cohabitation as a preventative measure, highlighting how fear-based decisions rooted in past trauma may actually undermine future marital stability. This appeals to reason and critiques the emotional motivations behind shifting relationship norms.

“Older views of marriage are considered to be traditional and oppressive, while the newer view of the “Me-Marriage” seems so liberating. And yet it is the newer view that has led to a steep decline in marriage and to an oppressive sense of hopelessness with regard to it. To conduct a Me-Marriage requires two completely well-adjusted, happy individuals, with very little in the way of emotional neediness of their own or character flaws that need a lot of work. The problem is—there is almost no one like that out there to marry! The new conception of marriage-as-self-realization has put us in a position of wanting too much out of marriage and yet not nearly enough—at the same time.

The Kellers employ juxtaposition and irony to critique the shift from traditional views of marriage to the modern “Me-Marriage” model. By contrasting older, so-called “oppressive” notions with the individualistic ideal of marriage-as-self-realization, they reveal how the newer model—despite its promise of freedom—has bred disillusionment and unattainable expectations. The irony lies in the fact that seeking marriage primarily for personal fulfillment has made it both less attainable and less satisfying. This critique reinforces the book’s central theme of Marriage as a Covenantal Relationship—one based not on self-centered desires but on mutual promise, sacrifice, and growth.

“Duke University ethics professor Stanley Hauerwas has famously made this point: Destructive to marriage is the self-fulfillment ethic that assumes marriage and the family are primarily institutions of personal fulfillment, necessary for us to become ‘whole’ and happy. The assumption is that there is someone just right for us to marry and that if we look closely enough we will find the right person. This moral assumption overlooks a crucial aspect to marriage. It fails to appreciate the fact that we always marry the wrong person.”

The authors use expert testimony and irony to challenge the popular belief that marriage is about personal fulfillment. By quoting Stanley Hauerwas, they strengthen their argument through appeal to authority, showing that even scholars recognize the flaw in seeking perfection through marriage. The surprising statement “we always marry the wrong person” functions as a rhetorical device to disrupt the reader’s assumptions and emphasize that expecting a perfect match sets people up for disappointment. This highlights the unrealistic standards that can damage modern relationships.

“First, the picture of marriage given here is not of two needy people, unsure of their own value and purpose, finding their significance and meaning in one another’s arms. If you add two vacuums to each other, you only get a bigger and stronger vacuum, a giant sucking sound. Rather, Paul assumes that each spouse already has settled the big questions of life—why they were made by God and who they are in Christ.”

The authors use metaphor and allusion to emphasize the spiritual grounding necessary for a healthy marriage. The striking image of “two vacuums” serves as a metaphor for emotionally empty individuals seeking fulfillment in each other—only to intensify each other’s neediness. This language critiques the cultural notion that romantic relationships exist to provide ultimate meaning. Instead, the passage shifts focus to the biblical model, where identity and purpose are first rooted in Christ. By referencing Paul’s teachings, the authors reinforce the theme of Likening Marriage to Christ’s Relationship with the Church—suggesting that just as believers must find their identity in Christ before entering into union with Him, so too must spouses be spiritually whole to reflect that divine relationship in their marriage.

“Repeatedly Paul shows that love is the very opposite of ‘self-seeking,’ which is literally pursuing one’s own welfare before those of others. Self-centeredness is easily seen in the signs Paul lists: impatience, irritability, a lack of graciousness and kindness in speech, envious brooding on the better situations of others, and holding past injuries and hurts against others. In Dana Adam Shapiro’s interviews of divorced couples, it is clear that this was the heart of what led to marital disintegration.”

The authors draw on biblical allusion, definition, and empirical reference to underscore the destructive power of self-centeredness in marriage. By citing Paul’s description of love in 1 Corinthians 13, they highlight how true love requires the renunciation of self-interest—presenting a biblical counterpoint to cultural norms that elevate personal fulfillment. The list of behaviors—“impatience, irritability [...] holding past injuries”—serves as both a diagnostic and a rhetorical device, illustrating how these attitudes corrode relational intimacy. The reference to Dana Adam Shapiro’s interviews is meant to lend sociological weight, grounding scriptural principles in real-world consequences. Through this blend of exegesis and empirical insight, the authors emphasize that covenantal love must be rooted in selflessness, mirroring Christ’s sacrificial love for the Church.

“Some will ask, ‘If I put the happiness of my spouse ahead of my own needs—then what do I get out of it?’ The answer is—happiness. That is what you get, but a happiness through serving others instead of using them, a happiness that won’t be bad for you. It is the joy that comes from giving joy, from loving another person in a costly way. Today’s culture of the ‘Me-Marriage’ finds this very proposal—of putting the interests of your spouse ahead of your own—oppressive.”

Rhetorical questioning, contrast, and ethical appeal challenge modern cultural assumptions about self-fulfillment in relationships. The authors ask subvert the individualistic mindset of the “Me-Marriage” model with an unexpected assertion: True happiness is found not in self-serving gain but in self-giving love. This paradox is emphasized through the juxtaposition of using versus serving, suggesting that lasting joy stems from sacrificial commitment rather than emotional transaction. The phrase “a happiness that won’t be bad for you” functions both ironically and morally, critiquing superficial pleasures that ultimately harm relational health. By confronting cultural norms and recentering love as an act of costly generosity, the authors reinforce Marriage as a Covenantal Relationship—one rooted not in entitlement but in mutual self-donation.

“There is a conservative approach to marriage that puts a great deal of stress on traditional gender roles. It says that the basic problem in marriage is that both husband and wife need to submit to their God-given functions, which are that husbands need to be the head of the family, and wives need to submit to their husbands. There is a lot of emphasis on the differences between men and women. The problem is that an overemphasis could encourage selfishness, especially on the part of the husband.”

This excerpt uses critique and conditional reasoning to examine rigid interpretations of gender roles within Christian marriage. The authors highlight a conservative framework that places heavy emphasis on hierarchical functions—namely, male headship and female submission. However, through the qualifying statement “an overemphasis could encourage selfishness,” the authors challenge this model’s potential to distort biblical intent. By doing so, they introduce a cautionary tone, urging readers to see how a narrow focus on authority and submission may neglect the mutual self-giving central to healthy relationships. This directly ties into the theme The Role of Gender in Relationships, as it questions not the existence of gender distinctions but the way they are often applied.

“Today we stay connected to people only as long as they are meeting our particular needs at an acceptable cost to us. When we cease to make a profit—that is, when the relationship appears to require more love and affirmation from us than we are getting back—then we ‘cut our losses’ and drop the relationship. This has also been called ‘commodification,’ a process by which social relationships are reduced to economic exchange relationships, and so the very idea of ‘covenant’ is disappearing in our culture. Covenant is therefore a concept that is increasingly foreign to us, and yet the Bible says it is the essence of marriage, so we must take some time to understand it.”

An metaphor critiques the modern commodification of relationships, illustrating how contemporary culture treats human connection as transactional. By framing relational breakdown in economic terms like “profit,” “cost,” and “cut our losses,” the authors expose the utilitarian mindset that undermines lasting commitment. This analysis paves the way for introducing the biblical counterpoint—Marriage as a Covenantal Relationship. The stark contrast underscores how biblical marriage is not about maximizing personal gain but about sacrificial, enduring promise. The phrase “increasingly foreign to us” highlights the cultural alienation from this concept, prompting readers to critically examine how deeply ingrained consumer values erode the permanence and depth of covenantal love. Through this juxtaposition, the authors argue that reclaiming covenant is essential to restoring the integrity and sacredness of marriage.

“As we observed before, longitudinal studies reveal that two-thirds of unhappy marriages will become happy within five years if people stay married and do not get divorced. 4 Two-thirds! What can keep marriages together during the rough patches? The vows. A public oath, made to the world, keeps you ‘tied to the mast’ until your mind clears and you begin to understand things better. It keeps you in the relationship when your feelings flag, and flag they will. By contrast, consumer relationships cannot possibly endure these inevitable tests of life, because neither party is ‘tied to the mast.’”

The Kellers use a literary allusion—“tied to the mast”—to evoke an episode from Homer’s Odyssey, anchoring their argument in a metaphor of commitment that transcends emotion. This device reinforces the central claim that Marriage as a Covenantal Relationship, a view that offers the structural and moral strength necessary to endure hardship. By contrasting “public oath” with “consumer relationships,” the authors emphasize the performative and communal nature of covenant—one that is bound not by fluctuating feelings, but by steadfast promise. The repetition of “two-thirds” and the appeal to longitudinal studies introduce empirical evidence to strengthen the argument, bridging biblical theology with real-world outcomes. The passage asserts that vows are anchors meant to hold couples steady through the emotional storms that test every marriage.

“In any relationship, there will be frightening spells in which your feelings of love seem to dry up. And when that happens you must remember that the essence of a marriage is that it is a covenant, a commitment, a promise of future love. So what do you do? You do the acts of love, despite your lack of feeling. You may not feel tender, sympathetic, and eager to please, but in your actions you must be tender, understanding, forgiving, and helpful.”

The Kellers emphasize Marriage as a Covenantal Relationship by contrasting fleeting emotions with steadfast commitment, using the motif of "dry spells" as a metaphor for emotional lows that inevitably arise in long-term relationships. Through a tone that is both instructive and pastoral, the passage advocates for volitional love—love enacted through consistent, sacrificial behavior rather than driven by emotional impulse. The repetition of action-oriented verbs—“do the acts of love,” “be tender, understanding, forgiving”—underscores the idea that covenantal love is rooted in discipline, not spontaneity. By framing marriage as a “promise of future love,” the authors redefine love not as a proactive, covenant-bound choice, offering a countercultural view that affirms stability over sentiment.

“God designed us to need ‘horizontal’ relationships with other human beings. That is why even in paradise, loneliness was a terrible thing. We should therefore not be surprised to find that all the money, comforts, and pleasures in the world—our efforts to re-create a paradise for ourselves—are unable to fulfill us like love can. This is confirmation of our intuition that family and relationships are a greater blessing and provide greater satisfaction than anything money can buy.”

This excerpt highlights the theological anthropology at the heart of the Kellers’ argument—that humans are inherently relational beings by divine design. Through the use of contrast between “horizontal relationships” and material comforts, the authors emphasize that emotional fulfillment stems not from external achievements but from deep human connection. The literary technique of juxtaposition is central here: “all the money, comforts, and pleasures” are rendered hollow in comparison to the richness of love. The reference to paradise and loneliness alludes to Genesis, grounding the argument in scriptural narrative and reinforcing the idea that even in perfection, relationship—not isolation—was the intended human condition. The passage ultimately underscores the spiritual and existential primacy of love, reflecting the authors’ broader theological claim that relationships mirror divine intention more authentically than worldly success.

“In tribal societies, romance doesn’t matter as much as social status, and in individualistic Western societies, romance and great sex matter far more than anything else. The Bible, however, without ignoring responsibility to the community or the importance of romance, puts great emphasis on marriage as companionship.”

Cultural mores offer a contrast to the Bible’s countercultural stance on marriage. By juxtaposing tribal societies where social status governs marriage with Western individualism, which prioritizes romance and sexual fulfillment, the authors reveal how societal expectations shape marital values. The literary technique of triadic structure (“social status,” “romance and great sex,” “companionship”) underscores the progression of ideas and culminates in the biblical model, which elevates companionship as central to marriage. This positions Scripture as offering a more enduring vision than archaic or modern approaches—one where mutual friendship and spiritual alignment define the marital bond. The excerpt reflects the book’s broader argument that biblical marriage resists cultural extremes by emphasizing something deeper than utility or passion, Likening Marriage to Christ’s Relationship with the Church.

“This principle—that your spouse should be capable of becoming your best friend—is a game changer when you address the question of compatibility in a prospective spouse. If you think of marriage largely in terms of erotic love, then compatibility means sexual chemistry and appeal. If you think of marriage largely as a way to move into the kind of social status in life you desire, then compatibility means being part of the desired social class, and perhaps common tastes and aspirations for lifestyle. The problem with these factors is that they are not durable.”

This excerpt uses juxtaposition and causal reasoning to deconstruct contemporary definitions of compatibility. The authors contrast cultural understandings of compatibility—sexual chemistry and social alignment—with the biblical principle of friendship as the foundation of marriage. This rhetorical shift from superficial traits to enduring spiritual companionship reframes compatibility as character-based rather than circumstantial. Through parallel structure (“If you think of marriage”), the excerpt highlights how fleeting standards like physical attraction or social status often drive mate selection, only to reveal their instability over time. In elevating the idea of friendship, the authors align marriage with spiritual growth and shared purpose, reinforcing the book’s emphasis on covenant over consumerism.

“When you get married, your spouse is a big truck driving right through your heart. Marriage brings out the worst in you. It doesn’t create your weaknesses (though you may blame your spouse for your blow-ups)—it reveals them. This is not a bad thing, though. How can you change into your ‘glory-self’ if you assume that you’re already pretty close to perfect as it is?”

The vivid metaphor of a “big truck driving right through your heart” captures the emotional impact and intensity of marital intimacy, which strips away pretenses and exposes hidden flaws. Rather than portraying this exposure as destructive, the authors use paradox—marriage “brings out the worst in you” but this “is not a bad thing”—to reframe conflict as a catalyst for growth. The rhetorical question at the end challenges self-sufficiency and implies that the path to one’s “glory-self” requires a partner who lovingly reveals, rather than conceals, one's imperfections. This aligns with the book’s recurring theme that marriage is a refining covenant meant to transform both individuals.

“What we call love currencies are often called ‘love languages.’ This metaphor is also very helpful. If we say ‘I love you’ to someone who does not understand a word of English, then the love does not get through. We are sending it, but it is not being received. We must learn to send love in forms that the other person can comprehend.”

This excerpt uses metaphor to convey the concept of miscommunication in intimate relationships. By likening “love currencies” to spoken languages, the authors illustrate how expressions of love can fail if they are not tailored to the recipient’s emotional vocabulary. The example of saying “I love you” in an unfamiliar language emphasizes that intent alone is insufficient—effective love requires intentional, empathetic communication. This metaphor highlights a central theme of the book: Love within marriage must be both intentional and intelligible, grounded not just in sincerity but in mutual understanding.

“One of the greatest expressions of love is the willingness to change, to make a commitment to change attitudes and behaviors in yourself that trouble or hurt your spouse. There must be an ability to take correction and to be accountable for real concrete changes. This kind of change is always hard, and nearly impossible without the grace of God, but it is also one of the most powerful signs of love in a marriage.”

This excerpt uses direct, declarative language and moral imperative to elevate personal transformation as a core expression of love within marriage. The authors frame change not as weakness or capitulation, but as an active, courageous form of love—emphasizing accountability, responsiveness, and growth. The repetition of the word “change” reinforces its centrality, while the phrase “nearly impossible without the grace of God” connects this personal transformation to divine empowerment, aligning with the book’s larger spiritual framework. By presenting mutual correction and transformation as sacred acts, the excerpt affirms marriage as a sanctifying relationship—one where love is demonstrated through humility, effort, and grace-driven growth.

“Both women and men get to ‘play the Jesus role’ in marriage—Jesus in his sacrificial authority, Jesus in his sacrificial submission. By accepting our gender roles, and operating within them, we are able to demonstrate to the world concepts that are so counterintuitive as to be completely unintelligible unless they are lived out by men and women in Christian marriages.”

This excerpt reinforces The Role of Gender in Relationships by using theological parallelism to align traditional gender roles with the dual nature of Christ’s character—His sacrificial authority and His sacrificial submission. The authors elevate both roles, rejecting hierarchy or superiority, and instead presenting gendered expressions as equally Christlike. The phrase “play the Jesus role” acts as a rhetorical device that reframes contentious ideas like headship and submission into redemptive acts of service and love. By claiming these roles are “unintelligible unless [...] lived out,” the Kellers stress embodiment as a key literary and theological strategy—demonstrating that gender roles, when grounded in the Gospel, serve a missional function by revealing divine truths through lived marital dynamics.

“Marriage is a full embrace of the other sex. We accept and yet struggle with the gendered ‘otherness’ of our spouse, and in the process, we grow and flourish in ways otherwise impossible. Because, as Genesis says, male and female are ‘like-opposite’ each other—both radically different and yet incomplete without each other.”

This excerpt illustrates The Role of Gender in Relationships by presenting marriage as a transformative encounter with “otherness.” The phrase “full embrace of the other sex” conveys both intimacy and tension, suggesting that growth comes not in spite of gender differences, but through them. The Kellers draw on the Genesis concept of being “like-opposite” to emphasize the theological and relational design behind gender distinction—men and women are not interchangeable, but complementary. This deliberate contrast becomes a literary and theological framework for understanding how encountering difference within marriage sharpens character, deepens empathy, and fosters mutual sanctification. Gendered difference is not a hurdle to overcome but a divine means through which spouses are shaped into fuller versions of themselves.

“As we have seen, Ephesians 5 tells us that marriage is not ultimately about sex or social stability or personal fulfillment. Marriage was created to be a reflection on the human level of our ultimate love relationship and union with the Lord. It is a sign and foretaste of the future kingdom of God. But this high view of marriage tells us that marriage, therefore, is penultimate. It points us to the Real Marriage that our souls need and the Real Family our hearts were made for.”

This excerpt powerfully conveys the theme of Likening Marriage to Christ’s Relationship with the Church by framing human marriage as a temporal signpost pointing to an eternal reality. Through theological framing and metaphor—“a sign,” “a reflection,” “a foretaste”—the authors use symbolic language to elevate the meaning of earthly marriage beyond cultural or emotional purposes. The phrase “Real Marriage” and “Real Family” capitalizes on abstraction to redirect the reader’s focus from earthly bonds to divine union, emphasizing that human relationships are echoes of the believer’s ultimate relationship with Christ. This rhetorical move grounds the Christian understanding of marriage in eschatological hope and positions marriage as spiritually formative rather than self-fulfilling.

“Marriage is God’s gift to the church. Through Christian marriages, the story of the Gospel—of sin, grace, and restoration—can be seen and heard both inside the church and out in the world. Christian marriages proclaim the Gospel. That is how important they are. The Christian community has a deep interest in the development of strong, great marriages and therefore a vested interest in the community’s singles marrying well. Singles must not act as if who they marry is a decision belonging just to them as individuals.”

Likening Marriage to Christ’s Relationship with the Church means presenting marriage not merely as a private union, but as a communal and theological testimony. The authors use declarative and emphatic language—“Christian marriages proclaim the Gospel”—to reinforce the idea that marriage serves as a living metaphor for the Gospel narrative. By linking marriage to the story of “sin, grace, and restoration,” the passage situates the marital relationship within the redemptive arc of Christian theology. Additionally, the communal tone—seen in phrases like “the Christian community has a deep interest”—emphasizes marriage as a public, ecclesial act with spiritual implications, reinforcing the belief that individual marital choices reverberate across the body of believers and bear witness to Christ’s love for His Church.

“Sex is God’s appointed way for two people to reciprocally say to one another, ‘I belong completely, permanently, and exclusively to you.’ You must not use sex to say anything less. So, according to the Bible, a covenant is necessary for sex. It creates a place of security for vulnerability and intimacy. But though a marriage covenant is necessary for sex, sex is also necessary for the maintenance of the covenant. It is your covenant renewal service.”

This excerpt reinforces the theme of Marriage as a Covenantal Relationship by presenting sex not as a mere physical act or personal expression but as a sacred ritual tied to marital vows. The authors use covenantal language—“completely, permanently, and exclusively”—to elevate sex as a form of embodied commitment, aligning it with biblical ideas of fidelity and mutual self-giving. The metaphor “covenant renewal service” casts sexual intimacy as liturgical, suggesting that it serves to re-affirm and strengthen the original vows, much like spiritual rituals renew one’s connection to God. The repetition of the word “necessary” underscores a dual interdependence: the covenant provides the safe context for sex, and sex, in turn, nourishes and reinforces the covenant. Through this theological framing, the authors reject the commodified or casual cultural view of sex, presenting instead a deeply symbolic act central to the health and endurance of a biblical marriage.